Back in 1968 millions of people listened to an eminent scientist named Paul Ehrlich. His best-selling book, THE POPULATION BOMB, scared the crap out of people, made a talk-show and cocktail party guru out of Ehrlich and made him the global warming guru of his day.

Ehrlich's book contended that population growth had rendered the Earth incapable of feeding its people and that huge famines and mass starvations were in our near future.

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..

His horror scenario never unfolded, India has a population of about 1.2 billion and is one of the world's most vibrant, growing economies.

hmmmm...vibrant and growing economy? Certainly in parts...but the following is still true..

Hunger Facts - the number one cause of death in India is hunger...and that is only India..it is happening elsewhere too.

1. Hunger remains the No.1 cause of death in the world. Aids, Cancer etc. follow.

2. There are 820 million chronically hungry people in the world.

3. 1/3rd of the worldÂ’s hungry live in India.

4. 836 million Indians survive on less than Rs. 20 (less than half-a-dollar) a day.

5. Over 20 crore Indians will sleep hungry tonight.

6. 10 million people die every year of chronic hunger and hunger-related diseases. Only eight percent are the victims of hunger caused by high-profile earthquakes, floods, droughts and wars.

7. India has 212 million undernourished people Â– only marginally below the 215 million estimated for 1990Â–92.

8. 99% of the 1000 Adivasi households from 40 villages in the two states, who comprised the total sample, experienced chronic hunger (unable to get two square meals, or at least one square meal and one poor/partial meal, on even one day in the week prior to the survey). Almost as many (24.1 per cent) had lived in conditions of semi-starvation during the previous month.

9. Over 7000 Indians die of hunger every day.

10. Over 25 lakh Indians die of hunger every year.

11. Despite substantial improvement in health since independence and a growth rate of 8 percent in recent years, under-nutrition remains a silent emergency in India, with almost 50 percent of Indian children underweight and more than 70 percent of the women and children with serious nutritional deficiencies as anemia.

12. The 1998 Â– 99 Indian survey shows 57 percent of the children aged 0 Â– 3 years to be either severely or moderately stunted and/or underweight.

13. During 2006 Â– 2007, malnutrition contributed to seven million Indian children dying, nearly two million before the age of one.

14. 30% of newborn are of low birth weight, 56% of married women are anaemic and 79% of children age 6-35 months are anaemic.

15. The number of hungry people in India is always more than the number of people below official poverty line (while around 37% of rural households were below the poverty line in 1993-94, 80% of households suffered under nutrition).

Lets hope the Climate doesnt do as much damage as that 'fulfilled prediction'...and what was it Nihi said about raising the care factor, not the awareness - seems we just got so used to tuning out starving people, we think it isn't happening...how long before we feel the same about drowning people?

Diane just doesn't understand economics. The economy in India is booming, so everything is ok! Of course it will take time for the benefits of this to "trickle down" as we fans like to say. Only the namby pamby liberals think that actually feeding the poor in the mean time is a good idea.

The fascist's feelings of insecurity run so deep that he desperately needs a classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the fascist's embracement of concepts like mental illness and IQ tests. - R.J.V.

As part of this thread I made reference to a Chicken Little fraud of the 60s perpetrated by scientist Paul Erlich in his book THE POPULATION BOMB. One of Erlich's great ideas to mitigate the coming famines and starvation was to create food banks to distribute food to "worthy" nations. Since, in Erlich's opinion, India's agriculture policies had been irresponsible for decades, it would get no food and presumably starve itself to extinction.

I concluded by saying that, despite Erlich's scenario, India survived, grew and has one of the world's most vibrant economies.

To which dorbel replied " The economy in India is booming, so everything is ok! Of course it will take time for the benefits of this to "trickle down" as we fans like to say. Only the namby pamby liberals think that actually feeding the poor in the mean time is a good idea."

Diane responded by citing a laundry list of facts pointing out the miserable living conditions of many Indians despite the roaring economy.

It is amusing and not a little ironic that these two should suddenly display some semblance of conscience and no small amount of righteous indignation over India's plight.

These two stalwarts of the British Empire seem to have overlooked the role that their nation played in contributing to the conditions in India they now claim to deplore.

For nearly 100 years Britain ruled India as its own feudal state, referring to it as THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN. Basically, Britain looted India, keeping its millions in virtual slavery, exerting near-total control over India's economy, and only vacating the country, in 1947, when it became apparent that Britain could no longer afford to maintain control over its former empire.

It's a miracle that India emerged from its days as a British colony at all, let alone created the growing economy that exists only 67 years after independence.

Of course there are problems, as there are in China, another powerhouse current economy that suffered thru centuries of exploitation, both internal and external.

I suggest that before dorbel and Diane display their indignation ( and their ignorance of their own history ) they wash the blood off their own hands. In dorbel's case he might do some research into why the NAMBY PAMBY LIBERALS of the British Raj couldn't decide that feeding the poor was a good idea during its 100 year stewardship.

Blood on my hands? I was born in 1947! Anyway, you can't have it both ways. Either India has millions of starving poor and likely to have them for all our lifetimes, or India is in fact a booming economy that is taking great care of its poor. You told us that Mr Erlich was entirely wrong in the sixties to suggest that the world was going to struggle to feed its populace. Looks to me like he nailed it.

Anyway, you can't have it both ways. Either India has millions of starving poor and likely to have them for all our lifetimes, or India is in fact a booming economy that is taking great care of its poor. You told us that Mr Erlich was entirely wrong in the sixties to suggest that the world was going to struggle to feed its populace. Looks to me like he nailed it.

Actually, I can have it both ways. India is most certainly a booming economy, it has millions of starving poor, ( which I didn't include in my post ), and I never claimed it was taking great care of its poor.

I told you Mr. Erlich was wrong to predict famines killing millions, including 100 million in the USA. That never happened. The phrase STRUGGLE TO FEED ITS POPULACE is your own fanciful insertion into the dialog.

And if you really want to get into a genuine dialog about poverty, poor health and other social ills of India, you need to recognize your own country's shameful role in the situation.

I realize you were born after Britain left India but you're as much fair game for England's past sins as Inim is for Germany's insane, homicidal 20th century history and I've been made out to be for America's despicable slave past.

If you'd simply stick to the actual substance of posts without inserting your own snide insinuations and non-sequiturs, an accurate, on-point, truthful dialog might ensue.

Overpopulation - now there is a subject worth debating- rather than the usual economic-based drivel we usually hear.

Why don't you just post the video of WE ARE THE WORLD ? This was the entertainment industry's effort to attack world hunger. Course it too was economic-based drivel since the proceeds from record sales went to purchase food.

You might also offer up your thoughts on how many times we're going to have to feed the starving wretches of Africa who are hungry in no small measure to their own thuggish leaders confiscating the donated food for their own economic-based gain.

It's just a goddam shame how often economic-based drivel snakes its way in and ruins the noblest intentions of mankind.

Perhaps, garp, you could make righting this heinous wrong your new life's calling. Since you profess no interest in things economic, you'd be the perfect, un-corruptible person to head such an endeavor.

There is no GLOBAL POPULATION CRISIS. There are certain countries which are overpopulated based on the countries' ability to feed its people, which is really the key issue.

The population density of the World, excluding Antarctica, is 135 people per square mile. Russia, Canada, USA, Brazil and Australia are 5 of the top 7 countries of the world in terms of land area. Their population densities are as follows:

Australia 8.0Canada 8.8Russia 21.0Brazil 60.0USA 83.0

I doubt even you would contend that ANY of these countries lacks the resources or abilities to feed themselves. So, where's the crisis ?

India 957.0China 365.0

The other 2 of the 7 largest countries by land area. A bit scary in terms of population density but I'm not aware of any nascent famines brewing in either country.

It begins to get worrisome when you look at

Bangladesh 2497El Salvador 759

As I told you before in a post on this topic: Beware of overarching generalizations, they generally lead to erroneous conclusions.

I don't know what you mean by OVERUSE of global resources. Burn a lump of coal or a gallon of gasoline, IT'S GONE ! It's been used, it can't be OVERUSED.

Perhaps you mean OVER-RELIANCE or OVER-DEPENDENCE, which is a different discussion.

I'm going to ask you to please come to these discussions armed with facts. I get tired of correcting you and you never seem to learn anyway. Back in the day, guys like you who were resistant to learning sat in the corner wearing a dunce cap. I don't find one in the group of Smileys, maybe this will suffice.

OMG *slaps self upside of head* [to avoid the need for an icon to do it]..its like debating with toddlers...and again, I wonder why I bother...

The hunger post was relevant to this debate as a consideration of the accuracy of scientific predictions..Nihi used it to claim the future is not predictable in this way, I pointed out that it exactly is.

Then suddenly I am personally responsible for the sh** choices of [not my] ancestors. Because trust me, I am not related to anyone in the ruling class who made those decisions. So let's just ignore that pointless, unsubtle attempt to derail the discussion again..

The question here is whether there is any possibility of predicting what climate change will mean to humanity, and therefore is it worth bothering spending any money to avoid it. You know, like we spend money wandering round in space, and building weapons of mass destruction while the ice caps melt and the sea levels rise [assuming you believe in all that]..talk about fiddling while Rome burns..

With this lot here, I am drawn to an analogy I am sure Moonshadow will love [kisses moonshadow ]

Imagine, if you will...you are in Australia, in summer...some two towns away, a bushfire starts...the news tells you the fire is moving at 350Ks per hour and coming your way...what will you do?

Ignore it because YOU cant see any fire...and the news is all rubbish anywayIgnore it, because the movements of bushfires are unpredictable, and it could go anywhere, or die out..Ignore it, because you have a firebunker and will be alright anywayMove to somewhere that will never have bushfires and adopt an 'I'm alright jack' stanceStay, despite your fears, because your neighbours told you you are a moron to take any notice of the news, and THEY cant see any fireFollow up on your carefully prepared fireplan and help your neighbours to get away tooGet your children to safety and go and help fight the fire....wait until the last minute and then try and outrun the fire which is coming at you, now travelling at 500Kph....

So many die here from not believing that news, or predictions...as do so many elsewhere because they think weather and extreme events wont happen to them, or are a big fuss about nothing.

For sure, there is an element of unpredictability - and we dont know how bad it will or won't get..but as I have said so many times before..is the Earth not worth the benefit of the doubt - given it is the only habitable planet we have?

Nihi used it to claim the future is not predictable in this way, I pointed out that it exactly is.

I absolutely made no such claim.

I made reference to a popular book of the '60s that was the same alarmist crap the global warming industry tries to sell today. That was the only parallel.

The author of THE POPULATION BOMB, Paul Erlich began, " The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate. "

JUST EFFING WRONG !!!

With specific regard to India:

" Famine has not been eliminated, but its root cause has been political instability, not global food shortage. The Indian economist and Nobel Prize winner, Amartya Sen, has argued that nations with democracy and a free press have virtually never suffered from extended famines. Nevertheless, in 2010 the UN reported that 925 million of the world's population of nearly seven billion people were in a constant state of hunger. The UN report notes that the percentage of the world's population who qualify as "undernourished" has fallen by more than half, from 33 percent to about 16 percent, since Ehrlich published The Population Bomb.

Ehrlich writes: "I don't see how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980." This view was widely held at the time, as another statement of his, later in the book: "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." In the book's 1971 edition, the latter prediction was removed, as the food situation in India suddenly improved. ( You just gotta love that part )

As of 2010, India had almost 1.2 billion people, having nearly tripled its population from around 400 million in 1960. India's Total Fertility Rate in 2008 was calculated to be 2.6. While the absolute numbers of malnourished children in India is high, the rates of malnutrition and poverty in India have declined from approximately 90% at the time of India's independence, to less than 40% today. Ehrlich's prediction about famines were found to be false, although food security is an issue in India. However, most epidemiologists, public health physicians and demographers identify corruption as the chief cause of malnutrition, not "overpopulation". As Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen noted, India frequently had famines during British colonial rule. However, since India became a democracy, there have been no recorded famines. ( Another good reason to applaud the Brits' exit from India )

To return for a moment to garp's point, to really grasp the nuances of the entire World population/ Global hunger issue you must look at WHERE these things are truly occurring. You must consider land area, population densities, fertility rates by nation. As I have pointed out previously, the greatest danger is with countries that have high birth rates and lack the ability to feed their populations.

It is our great collective misfortune that the scientific community made its decisive diagnosis of the climate threat at the precise moment when an elite minority was enjoying more unfettered political, cultural, and intellectual power than at any point since the 1920s